Outside Major/Critical/Enhancement, I don't think severity useful, to be honest. Problem is, more often than not, a minor implementation glitch can result into an application breaking all around if it relies on it a lot. Which is pretty much the case with photoshop at the moment. Maybe it should be renamed to "impact", or something that would present itself differently to a first-time user. Or add a second severity field. I don't know, not my call.
2009/5/1 Nicklas Börjesson <nicklas.borjes...@ws.se>: > Hi all! > > First, I couldn't find any list more suitable than this one to comment the > severity levels in the bug reporting so I post it here. If this was a really > bad thing to do, please tell me were to do so. > Secondly, don't take this wrong, I am not here to preach, I actually think > this is a serious problem. I am not drunk either. Currently. :-) > > So, with regards to severity levels: > > Current severity levels are perfect for server applications where everything > is simply about functionality working or not working. > However, the overwhelming majority of windows applications in general, and > those being ported through wine in particular are GUI-based, end-user > applications. > When it comes to these kinds of applications, in front of which actual people > sit for hours on end doing actual work, other factors come into play. > > So I would like to introduce a bold new weight into the severity assessment: > The user experience. Or at least the bugs' negative impact on it. > The user experience(UE from here on) is really quite impossible to quantify > exactly, luckily that is not usually necessary. > > There are several reasons to incorporate this into the severity > classification, but I'll stop at two: > > 1. The ones reporting the bugs will come across with how severe they think > the bug is to them. > Currently, there is far too much of "you've got a almost black screen or > black square instead of icons running Photoshop?..hmm that's really > trivial...an 'UI glitch', but OK then, I'll mark it minor to be nice to ya." > To a user, even an advanced one, this must feel like talking to a > condescending Martian. Frustrating, if not infuriating. > Likely, they will never again take the time to make a bug report. It is even > quite likely that they will give up their move away from windows. > > 2. Currently, fixing a "trivial" UE-bug can make way more users happy than > fixing a "normal" functionality-bug. > This means that bug fixing is prioritized on a basis other than catering to > the users needs. And to me, that's something that really shows. > Can one defend this without invalidating the wine project? > It is a serious question, I might have missed something fundamental. > > Anyway, I have some ideas on how to make the severity classifications > better(and more intuitive for the mere user), but I won't go in to that now. > I just want to know if any of you agree with me. Do I make a valid point? > > //Nicklas > > PS. > I repost this since I didn't get any post from the server the first time. > Also I expect this post to piss some off, which makes it even stranger not to > get any replies at all. > BTW, I also just read in a comment in a bug report that the severity flag > doesn't mean much at all when it comes to how a bug is prioritized. > So the only input the users have on how important a bug is to them is > practically ignored? Why have that checkbox then? > And why make such a big thing of it not being correctly set? > DS. > > > > -- Adys
